Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[pbrower2a]

At this point nobody can predict what constitutes a "likely voter".

[pbrower2a]

Can someone explain to me what odd math Quinnipiac is using to get a 43/52 overall rating? What was the composite? If Dems and Reps are basically equal in their approve/disapprove of Trump, and Independents are underwater by *15 points*, how is his approval only -9? Shouldn't it basically be -15? Unless they're # of Reps is way bigger or something?

 There are few real independent voters anymore. There are more Democrats than Republicans. 

[pbrower2a]

TEXAS:

Q6. How well do you think Donald Trump is handling his job as president? Is he doing a very good job, somewhat good job,
somewhat poor job, or very poor job?
Percent
Very good job 27
Somewhat good job 20
Somewhat poor job 16
Very poor job 36
Don’t know 1

I am treating "very good"as "strongly approve", "somewhat good" as "approve", "somewhat poor" as "disapprove", and "very poor" as "strongly disapprove". There is no rhetorically-ambiguous "fair" category as in the widely-deprecated EGFP polls.

    https://www.texaslyceum.org/assets/docs/Poll/2020/2020_Lyceum_Crosstabs_DAY1.pdf

[pbrower2a]

So much for the Trump "surge".

If I am to guess the result of the impeachment process, it is that it is convincing people largely of what they believed beforehand.  Approval of the President somewhere between 38% and 43%  and disapproval slightly (but decisively and predictably!) above 50% is the norm.

Republicans are in poor shape for winning back the House, as the general ballot suggests much the same now as it did early in 2018. Republicans have only one easy pick-up in the Senate based on location (Doug Jones in Alabama) but plenty of potential losses in the Senate. I see Collins, Gardner, and McSalley as goners, and I cannot decide who makes the partisan split.   

[pbrower2a]

TEXAS:

Q6. How well do you think Donald Trump is handling his job as president? Is he doing a very good job, somewhat good job,
somewhat poor job, or very poor job?
Percent
Very good job 27
Somewhat good job 20
Somewhat poor job 16
Very poor job 36
Don’t know 1

I am treating "very good"as "strongly approve", "somewhat good" as "approve", "somewhat poor" as "disapprove", and "very poor" as "strongly disapprove". There is no rhetorically-ambiguous "fair" category as in the widely-deprecated EGFP polls.

    https://www.texaslyceum.org/assets/docs/Poll/2020/2020_Lyceum_Crosstabs_DAY1.pdf

I call this 47-52. I have seen polls like this of Texas before. If President Trump and Republicans must defend Texas, then they have one gigantic... Canada-sized problem in the upcoming election.

Pennsylvania F&M Poll

Favorability: 41/55 (-14)

Job Performance?
Excellent/Good: 38%
Fair/Poor: 61%

Deserve Re-Election? 41% yes, 57% no

https://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/562535870732261549-f-m-poll-release-january-2020.pdf

    

I do not use EGregiously Flawed Polls ---but "deserve re-election" is even more explicit about the President's chances of winning any particular state than approval and disapproval. As I have said before I am now more interested in expressing the chance that Trump wins or loses any single state.

Trump can hardly lose if he wins Pennsylvania, but he is going to lose in a landslide in the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania by double digits. If he loses nothing except Texas that he won in 2016, then he still loses the Electoral College 270-268. Of course Trump loses North Carolina of Florida before losing Texas.

Trump wins of these two states were 52-43 (Texas) and 48-47 (Pennsylvania) in 2016... these two polls suggest  almost a 9% shift in the vote in those two states. Together they comprise more than 1/10 of the total electoral vote; they are very different in their ethnic composition and economic realities. I'm not calling a collapse yet, but collapses look much like this. 

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

A state we don't see too often:

Tennessee: Mason-Dixon, Jan. 28-30, 625 RV

Approve 57
Disapprove 42

Interesting geographic breakdown:

East Tennessee: 61/38
Middle Tennessee: 56/32
West Tennessee: 53/46

Further right on map => further right voters.

Memphis is the biggest city and strongly D. Middle Tennessee has Nashville, not quite as big; eastern Tennessee has smaller cities (Knoxville, Chattanooga, Bristol, Johnson City). Western Tennessee is Deep South; eastern Tennessee is Mountain South.

Tennessee used to be the most progressive state in the South; that is over.

Not the greatest pollster, but it can't be off that much.

Alabama:  

 https://www.google.fr/amp/s/yellowhammernews.com/poll-doug-jones-reelection-chances-take-hit-if-he-votes-to-remove-trump/amp/

Trump vs Biden : Trump leads 59 to 38 (+21 points)
Trump vs Sanders : Trump leads 59 to 37 (+22 points)

Trump approval rate : 61/37
Against impeachment and removal : 64%

I don't know this pollster, but I have no cause for doubting the result.

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

If only 19% think the trial is being conducted fairly something tells me this will not be widely seen as "vindication".

I concur on this, but I do not predict polling results. Considering that John Bolton, of all people, holds what so far might be the most damning testimony... Senate Republicans will not look good if they block  that. This said, I am a numbers person, and I insist upon seeing numbers. Bolton called the matter "a drug deal", which is about as nasty a description that one can have of a harebrained stratagem.

There is no analogue to the Trump impeachment in American history. With Nixon it was dirty tricks in domestic politics. With Clinton it was over personal sexuality then legal and tolerated. With Trump it is an attempt to sell out an ally for political advantage. 

[pbrower2a]

Gallup has trump at 49

Poll of adults, not likely or even registered voters. 527 Republicans and leaners, 443 Democrats and leaners. Over sampled men.

Tho, not surprising tbh. Nobody cares about political scandals when the economy is good

Watergate.

Nixon at the least was having some successful foreign policy, and he was pushing significant reforms in the economy.

The economy is going great -- incredibly great for the social apex. But if it is only the economy, then why ro middle-class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians hold him in contempt?  -

49% from that sample? Not so great for Trump.

[pbrower2a]

It's a great economy for the economic elites, and a horrible one for non-elites. Social mobility for most people is in only one direction -- down.  Trump made big promises of unprecedented prosperity, and the people who most need that haven't gotten it.

[pbrower2a]

People are even more intense in their loathing or they feel more need to defend him.

[pbrower2a]

One thing is different this time: Trump has been in campaign mode even after being elected. So can he pick things up by staying much the same?

I suspect that as usual, Trump rallied his supporters and offended his detractors. After the whitewash of his obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" I expect him express his vindication.

[pbrower2a]

I do not predict polling results, but polls from this weekend should be interesting. 

[pbrower2a]

One thing is different this time: Trump has been in campaign mode even after being elected. So can he pick things up by staying much the same?

I suspect that as usual, Trump rallied his supporters and offended his detractors. After the whitewash of his obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" I expect him express his vindication.

I remember when Democrats used to say that calling someone acquitted of a crime guilty is racist. Now they call Trump guilty after he was acquitted. Oh, I forgot, he's White so racism against him is okay.

Racism against Trump because he is white?

No. If I am bigoted against anything it is against bad character. It is no more racist to find Donald Trump abominable than it was to find Idi Amin or Ferdinand Marcos abominable. OK, so perhaps it isn't bigotry if it has justification. I went from seeing Bill Cosby as a hero to being a villain in a short time, and it was on a blatant pattern of horrible misdeeds, to wit, date rape.

Personal character has no connection to race, class, ethnicity, or religious heritage. It is not antisemitic to despise Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein, or Harvey Weinstein. It is not anti-Hispanic to despise Richard Ramirez, Angel Resendiz, or Ariel Castro. Rogue characters are dangerous. It is not anti-white to condemn John Gacy, Ted Bundy, or Aileen Wuornos.

I challenge anyone to show what virtues Donald Trump has as a person. I see him as a rogue, a narcissist verging on a sociopath. Don't tell me about his talents, his power, or his talents. People with bad character abuse those.

As said Heraclitus in classical Greek times, character is destiny. Human character has changed little, and the consequences of bad behavior and on the other side heroism and integrity have changed little. Most of the same vices in Classical Greece have the same consequences to both the vice-holder and his victims. Donald Trump has horrible character.

That rich, powerful people can get away with far more than can migrant farm workers demonstrates only that the rich and powerful can do far more personal harm. It is bad enough that rich, powerful, influential people be hollow; when they become rogues their worst tendencies have monstrous power behind them. If you cannot see the difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump in character, then you are morally blind.

People who will be in positions of power, wealth, and influence need to have solid character. They must learn early that there is more to life than gain, indulgence, sex, pop culture, and bureaucratic power. One must have limits if one is to not be a monster.  

[pbrower2a]

The  Unskewing 2.0...



Guys, would you try this hard if the polls showed the opposite, like Trump going down under 40%?

I would have posted that tweet even if it was the other way around.  If you've read my posts for the last several years, you should know that I post polls and interesting items about polling regardless of which side they favor.

I don't know man, I really don't know. You seem to post a lot of polls, even if they were partially mentioned in the thread, bur nor Gallup, nor ABC/WaPo pollsters... Both are live Gold Standard, both showed Removal under water and Trump gaining momentum... 


With that said, yes, these polls were of course outlier'ish and likely to bounce back, but if the same polls that showed Trump at ~40% a year ago shows him now at ~47% it tells you something.

GeorgiaModerate is arguably one of the best posters when it comes to posting without injecting commentary. 

I can go along with that. I try to see patterns -- but I warn people now: we are now in uncharted waters, at least if one sees things with "American" blinders. I see ugly parallels elsewhere in time and place. 

[pbrower2a]

One thing is different this time: Trump has been in campaign mode even after being elected. So can he pick things up by staying much the same?

I suspect that as usual, Trump rallied his supporters and offended his detractors. After the whitewash of his obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" I expect him express his vindication.

I remember when Democrats used to say that calling someone acquitted of a crime guilty is racist. Now they call Trump guilty after he was acquitted. Oh, I forgot, he's White so racism against him is okay.

Racism against Trump because he is white?

No. If I am bigoted against anything it is against bad character. It is no more racist to find Donald Trump abominable than it was to find Idi Amin or Ferdinand Marcos abominable. OK, so perhaps it isn't bigotry if it has justification. I went from seeing Bill Cosby as a hero to being a villain in a short time, and it was on a blatant pattern of horrible misdeeds, to wit, date rape.

Personal character has no connection to race, class, ethnicity, or religious heritage. It is not antisemitic to despise Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein, or Harvey Weinstein. It is not anti-Hispanic to despise Richard Ramirez, Angel Resendiz, or Ariel Castro. Rogue characters are dangerous. It is not anti-white to condemn John Gacy, Ted Bundy, or Aileen Wuornos.

I challenge anyone to show what virtues Donald Trump has as a person. I see him as a rogue, a narcissist verging on a sociopath. Don't tell me about his talents, his power, or his talents. People with bad character abuse those.

As said Heraclitus in classical Greek times, character is destiny. Human character has changed little, and the consequences of bad behavior and on the other side heroism and integrity have changed little. Most of the same vices in Classical Greece have the same consequences to both the vice-holder and his victims. Donald Trump has horrible character.

That rich, powerful people can get away with far more than can migrant farm workers demonstrates only that the rich and powerful can do far more personal harm. It is bad enough that rich, powerful, influential people be hollow; when they become rogues their worst tendencies have monstrous power behind them. If you cannot see the difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump in character, then you are morally blind.

People who will be in positions of power, wealth, and influence need to have solid character. They must learn early that there is more to life than gain, indulgence, sex, pop culture, and bureaucratic power. One must have limits if one is to not be a monster.  

You accused President Trump of being guilty even after the non guilty verdict. I pointed out that this has historically been done against Black people, and especially Democrats were quick to point out racism. Now you sit here accusing President Trump of being guilty even though he was proven to be not guilty. I doubt you would be doing that to a Black President, because that would be seen as racist. Because Trump is White, you see no problem with it. Trump's character has nothing to do with accusing him of being guilty of a crime he was proven to be not guilty of.

If there is any comparison (an impeachment is not a criminal conviction) than it is to all-white Southern juries that got instructions to not take their KKK robes to court during the session. (It wasn't a lynching; it was protection of white womanhood). Impeachment could be over a deed unlikely to be prosecuted in a criminal trial, let us say spitting at a foreign diplomat or Head of State. 

Trump was acquitted; I expected such. I see the Republican Party operating on the Commie practice of democratic centralism, the essence of lockstep politics by a Communist Party. (Decisions made at the top are final -- beyond discussion and not to be changed).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=DgxZr6LLS34&feature=emb_logo

[pbrower2a]

Trump is clearly an underdog in the race still and Bush W came back in part due to weakness of Edward's with no national security,  but Trump is closing the gap and a 270-268 is his pathway to reelection that wasnt possible during impeachment.  It was a very good speech

It was awful. I am old enough to remember those of Ronald Reagan. Even if I disagreed with him vehemently on some issues he was able to put in a kind word for people not on his side. With Trump it is little more than taking credit for everything that goes right and vilifying any disagreement.

People who thought him wonderful before the impeachment still think so of him. People who thought him awful still think so of him. 

[pbrower2a]

Trump doesn't inherently affect the economy. No President does. How many more times does this need to be said!? While he may be able to influence certain policies, none are, or have been significant enough to affect the economy in a way that makes Trump a necessity to keep in power for it to remain stable. The economy was in a very similar position when he got elected, Clinton tried to capitalize on it and failed either due to personal circumstance getting in the way, or the economy's comfortable position making other issues the priority. The same could happen to Trump. So it's possible that some Americans are able to recognize that the numbers don't tell the whole story when the economy is just as much about personal experience. Granted, it's not actually up to the President to personally affect our lives and livelihoods. They can help or hurt in some ways, as I mentioned before but when it comes down to it the economy is just too complex and intricate for it to make sense for the President's mere existence to somehow correspond to the results.

The dirty little secret is that the common man as a worker, retiree, or welfare recipient has become little more than a conduit or funds from some groups of capitalists to other groups of capitalists. Thus it is for a software engineer in Silicon Valley -- one simply transfers money that appears as a payroll to taxing authorities, public utilities, landlords, grocers, oil companies, and auto lenders, among others. The reward as such a conduit depends upon the occupation and location.   Unlike Hoover, Dubya (for a short time) and Obama had the tools to prevent an economic meltdown  from becoming as severe as the Great Depression. 

There is more out of their control than any President would like to admit, and they won't admit it because the typical less informed American voter will always erroneously continue to think that the President should receive the blame or credit for the economy due to a lack of understanding of what the President's role actually is within our federal government. Hell, Trump doesn't even know that.

The worst situation for a political leadership is stagflation in which the economy is operating to its limits yet failing to meet the demands of those in the workforce. In the middle-to-late 1970's the American economy created millions of low-paying jobs in malls and fast-food places that of course paid a travesty of a wage while the industrial economy tanked. Real estate investment started to tank as there were few remaining farms in urban areas to be subdivided into low-cost tract housing.

Stopping stagflation means cutting wages and raising taxes -- and both sting. Carter was unwilling to do that. Reagan was. With such, Reagan succeeded in cutting expectations. We are still there, except that property rents keep soaring and commutes keep lengthening. 

[pbrower2a]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

Obamas Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (or Stimulus as it was called) was the biggest trainwreck in the United States History. Biggest of jokes entirely. I still loathe Susan Collins for voting for it. Specter lost in the Primary the year after and Dems lost that Senate Seat consequently and Snowe isn't in Office anymore. I won't cry one bit if Collins loses this year. I even would give up the Senate Majority for getting these Moderate RINOS out of Office once and for all.

Collins must go, Portman must go (hopefully in 2022), Murkowski must go (2022), Romney must go (2024)

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

Tim Geitner was a joke compared to Steven Mnuchin. Obama had bad Economic People.

Trump should relentlessly hammer the Message: Democrats create Mobs, Republicans create Jobs.

Democrats will hammer the message that the jobs being created pay badly and are temporary in nature. Such jobs might be ways of meeting emergencies or (for youth) as steppingstones to better -- but even those steppingstones are at best short-term solutions because they pay badly. 

[pbrower2a]

A warning about Trump popularity: William Weld got about 10% of the primary vote at the stage at which I last saw the results for the New Hampshire primary. Yes, the Republicans had a primary in New Hampshire.

Considering that the President dominates the airwaves these days except on political ads and news not involving Democratic campaigns, such bodes ill for Trump in November. Many Republican voters can imagine better.

[pbrower2a]

I wouldn't read a lot (in either direction) into turnout for a primary in which there's an incumbent with no significant challengers.

Trump actually held a rally just before the Republican primary, which is unusual. Obama didn't. Obama seemed not to like wasting Presidential time or government funds.

What I noticed was that 9.1% of the Republican primary vote went to William Weld and a small number to write-ins, indicating that many Republicans have cold feet about Trump.

Let us put it this way -- the Democrats together got 296,622 votes, which is fewer than 50K away from what Hillary Clinton won in 2016.   

[pbrower2a]

A warning about Trump popularity: William Weld got about 10% of the primary vote at the stage at which I last saw the results for the New Hampshire primary. Yes, the Republicans had a primary in New Hampshire.

Considering that the President dominates the airwaves these days except on political ads and news not involving Democratic campaigns, such bodes ill for Trump in November. Many Republican voters can imagine better.

I'm assuming this a joke?

No joke. Trump has the Republican nomination locked up as it is, so any significant protest vote from within his own Party indicates that a significant number of people within his Party see something wrong with the sure nominee. Maybe they dislike his style, his foreign policy, or the failure of the process of impeachment.

There will be more primaries. Watch them closely. Sure, Weld would surely perform better in New Hampshire than in any state outside of New England.

I have seen polls in which Trump approval in New Hampshire is in the 30's and disapproval near 60%, something that one does not usually happen in a genuine swing state. This is what one might expect Obama to do in Alabama or Oklahoma, neither of which is close to being a swing state. 

The pertinent question remains: is there significant dissent within the GOP (in which case Trump will be unlikely to crack 42% of the popular vote nationwide), or is it simply New Hampshire?

[pbrower2a]

Trump was pumping it up though, by telling supporters to vote in Iowa, by making a big deal of how he won 97% of the vote in Iowa, by telling supporters again to vote for him in New Hampshire, and finally holding a rally in the state the night before. Past incumbents did nothing like that. They just ignored the primaries entirely after getting on the ballot.

Trump doesn't know what the norms are. He has no respect for book-learning on such things as history.

[pbrower2a]

Maine. An attempt to glean data from an unconventional poll. Colby College. It is a favorability poll which I do not use unless it is so blatant that it is incontrovertible. (for example, if I see "67% favorable and 28% unfavorable" in Oklahoma or vice-versa in Maryland I use it).

 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J_sj0VbK1zPUcErKBWIvCc5d6wFvwhKr_zageM2-I_I/edit#gid=457256029

All:

Will vote for Donald Trump no matter who the Democratic nominee is 34%
Will vote for the Democrat  no matter who the Democratic nominee is 37%
It depends 15%
Undecided 15%

Answered similarly of the two Congressional districts:

CD-01 -- 28/41/15/16
CD-02 -- 41/31/14/14

Extremely... indecisive. Figuring that Trump's early support even in CD-2 is short of the 43$ that he needs to have a chance of winning the district and that 34% (whole state) and 28% (CD-1) is way short, Trump has more than a 50% chance of losing CD-02 this time and no chance of winning anything else.

Favorable 39% unfavorable 60%

CD-01 34-69... CD-02  45-53

Trump looks like a sure loser in Maine at-large and CD-01; CD-02  looks as if it will be close, but with the Democrat getting the edge. With abysmal polling for Trump in Pennsylvania I can see Trump losing everything to the north and east of the Potomac. CD-02

Susan Collins (R, Incumbent, Senate)

40 decided for her -- 34 any Democrat -- unsure 26

Net favorable 42 unfavorable 54 -- pretty bad.

She is in a poor spot for re-election. 

I am not breaking down the district here as that is irrelevant to the Senate race

... Maine voters paid attention to the impeachment process, 79-21. Right decision 48, wrong decision 49.

The decision is not hurting Collins too badly... yet (49 right, 50 wrong)

Does it help her (17%) make one less likely to vote for her (36%) about the same (46%)

If Democrats can successfully tie her to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, then she is in deep trouble:

McConnell favorable 31%... unfavorable 50%

[pbrower2a]

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

Trump foundering in a state known for high altitudes (Colorado):Trump

https://www.globalstrategygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Rocky-Mountaineer-Political-Report-Topline.pdf

Just as in Maine and New Hampshire, Trump is doing badly in a state that he lost by a small margin in 2016:

Trump approval 44 disapproval 56... will vote for the Democrat 52 and for Trump 41

Senator Cory Gardner approval 37 disapproval 49...  vote 51% for the Democrat, 40% Gardner